Valve officially showed off the 13 official Steam Machines during its brief CES press event this evening, but it was in the aftermath where we got a closer look at the devices. Below, Reviews Editor Lee Hutchinson snapped photos of all the Steam Machine variants in their glorious array of shapes and sizes.

The machines in that price range can already handle _every_ game available in full 1080p, 60Hz without any issues.

That's an assumption. We can discuss again after people have been running Steam OS for a year. Then we can gauge how well the software & hardware has held up.

That's the whole point of making a blueprint for these things. They exist so that people can go to the store, pick one up and _know_ it will work with every game currently available.

You sound like you still understand that Valve has not developed a new device. The blueprint for pcs was created long ago and Valve had nothing to do with it. There is literally no difference between Windows gaming and "Steam Machine" AKA Steam OS AKA Linux gaming other than the fact that with Windows you have tons more games to choose from.

Otherwise, there would have been _zero_ need for Steam Machines blueprints.

What blueprints? Or did you actually mean to say `minimum Steam OS requirements`, just as you would find `minimum Windows OS requirements`?

_Just like_ consoles.

The difference is that you are not _locked_ when it comes to the hardware. If you _want_ to upgrade parts, you _can_ but you don't _have to_.

What's so hard to understand about that?
And why is that seen as a _negative_?

That's been the case since the pc market first took off. There is absolutely nothing new to see here. This is all old news.

You need to forget thinking pc gaming magically just turned into console gaming because Valves marketing fluff wants you to think something new is going on. This is really about trying to herd pc gamers away from Windows and towards Linux. That's the bottom line. If Valve has any shot at succeeding beyond Linux enthusiasts or Microsoft haters, it will only be after a long & painful uphill climb. At this point there's no reason for anyone to install Steam OS over their existing Windows box, and no good reason to buy a pc with Steam OS over an Xbox or Playstation. The only exceptions would be some morality about who you support, or Steam OS offering must-have exclusives that justify going that route. Most people don't care about the former, and whether the latter ever becomes trues has yet to be seen.

"The machines in that price range can already handle _every_ game available in full 1080p, 60Hz without any issues.

That's an assumption. We can discuss again after people have been running Steam OS for a year. Then we can gauge how well the software & hardware has held up. "

*sigh*, I did say every game "available", didn't I?
These things will allow games to continually evolve, unlike regular consoles where the games only evolve (technology wise) once every ten years.

Some like that, but I never liked the fact that regular consoles hold back technology evolution.
I'm hoping this will have a hand in solving that problem. I might, it might not, but I'm not gonna diss their attempt before we know for sure how it turns out.

"That's the whole point of making a blueprint for these things. They exist so that people can go to the store, pick one up and _know_ it will work with every game currently available.

You sound like you still understand that Valve has not developed a new device. The blueprint for pcs was created long ago and Valve had nothing to do with it. There is literally no difference between Windows gaming and "Steam Machine" AKA Steam OS AKA Linux gaming other than the fact that with Windows you have tons more games to choose from. "

And you still don't understand that there is no difference between that and regular consoles either.
THEY ARE ALL PC'S!

The "blueprints" in this case, are NOT for how to build regular PC's, but for a certification process, so that people can buy a certified machine and know that it will work.

Non-technical people have no idea if the run-of-the-mill PC down the store will work for their games.
With a Steam certified machine, they will know.

"Otherwise, there would have been _zero_ need for Steam Machines blueprints.

What blueprints? Or did you actually mean to say `minimum Steam OS requirements`, just as you would find `minimum Windows OS requirements`? "

How about you actually read a bit. Go check out what they have said themselves.
They said that they created blueprints for "good, better and best" steam machines.
A certification process: Build a machine with these requirements and you may slap a "better" sticker on it. And so on.
It's a simple certification!
What do you not get about that?

_Just like_ consoles.

The difference is that you are not _locked_ when it comes to the hardware. If you _want_ to upgrade parts, you _can_ but you don't _have to_.

What's so hard to understand about that?
And why is that seen as a _negative_?

That's been the case since the pc market first took off. There is absolutely nothing new to see here. This is all old news. [/q]

Just like consoles. How do you not get that?
The ONLY difference between regular consoles and this is that regular consoles stay the same for 10 years before evolving, while this will allow a little more rapid evolving. How is that in any way shape or form bad?

If you don't want your technology to evolve faster than every 10 years, keep buying Xboxes. No problem.

You need to forget thinking pc gaming magically just turned into console gaming because Valves marketing fluff wants you to think something new is going on.

Uh, I've never claimed that.
And Valve has NOT tried to market this as pc gaming magically turned into console gaming.
In fact, they market this as a tool for their existing customers who want to play their existing Steam games on their TV, from their sofa.

This is really about trying to herd pc gamers away from Windows and towards Linux. That's the bottom line.

Sure, they absolutely want an exit from the stronghold Microsoft has with Windows. And what's wrong with that?
If Microsoft succeeds with their App Store, they will effectively start herding people away from Steam, which will hurt Valve economically, so ofcourse they need a way out. Linux was the ONLY realistic choice, as the only other alternative was MacOS, and there Apple already has an even tighter grip of the ecosystem.

I don't care what operating system they decide to use for their products. Neither should you.
Who cares what operating system Sony uses on the Playstation?
This was never part of the discussion, so why bring it up?

You claim the machines are absolute regular ordinary PC's with just another operating system installed.
That's the exact same thing with consoles. They all even contain the same kind of hardware these days.
x86 CPU with a GPU from AMD or nVidia.
The only really difference between them all (including xbox and playstation) are the operating systems.
The first Xbox was a regular old PC with a slightly modified NT based operating system. Just another flavor of Windows. Just a PC.
The new Xbox still has a NT based operating system.
Just another PC.

There simply is no difference, technologically speaking. They are _all_ regular PC's with different operating systems.

It's like you wanna throw every last piece of shit you can find at the wall and see what sticks. Why?
Why are you so hell bent on dissing what they are attempting to acheive?

If Valve has any shot at succeeding beyond Linux enthusiasts or Microsoft haters, it will only be after a long & painful uphill climb.

Maybe, but why kick them in the process?
You are contributing to that uphill climb, instead of helping.

At this point there's no reason for anyone to install Steam OS over their existing Windows box

They are not asking anyone to. They are considering this a complement to the existing PC. For use in the living room.

, and no good reason to buy a pc with Steam OS over an Xbox or Playstation.

Unless you own a shit-ton of Steam games, that is.
Why buy an Xbox instead of a Playstation?
Why buy a Playstation instead of an Xbox?
It's the same argument.

The only exceptions would be some morality about who you support

Just like Xbox vs Playstation.
Your point?

, or Steam OS offering must-have exclusives that justify going that route. Most people don't care about the former, and whether the latter ever becomes trues has yet to be seen.

Just like Xbox vs Playstation.
Again, what's your point?
You seem to believe that these will actually be WORSE than an Xbox or Playstation, when in reality they are more likely gonna give you BETTER graphics and MORE available games for the same money.

Crazy huh?

Xbox One and Playstation 4 have very few games available at the moment, while the Steam Machines, even before they have been released, already have over 300 games available, all of them fully playable at 1080p, 60Hz, while both Xbox One and PS4 struggle to do the same with their existing games.
Both of them have upscaled some games from lower resolutions, to be able to handle them. And that's right after the consoles have been released.
Does not bode well for future game engine technology.
It will be CryEngine 2->3 all over again. They had to nerf their engine so that the consoles could handle it, actually removing features and lowering the graphics quality.
Yea, that's awesome... not.

These things will allow games to continually evolve, unlike regular consoles where the games only evolve (technology wise) once every ten years.

Some like that, but I never liked the fact that regular consoles hold back technology evolution.
I'm hoping this will have a hand in solving that problem.

That problem was already solved ages ago with the birth of 3d gaming on the pc. And, consoles don't drive technology therefore it's not possible for them to hold it back.

And you still don't understand that there is no difference between that and regular consoles either.
THEY ARE ALL PC'S!

By all means, please try to find a quote where I said consoles aren't pc's. In no way does differentiating between pc gaming and console gaming mean or imply there's any confusion regarding what the hardware is.

How about you actually read a bit. Go check out what they have said themselves.
They said that they created blueprints for "good, better and best" steam machines.
A certification process: Build a machine with these requirements and you may slap a "better" sticker on it. And so on.
It's a simple certification!
What do you not get about that?

You clearly missed the point. Oh well, no biggie.

That's been the case since the pc market first took off. There is absolutely nothing new to see here. This is all old news.
"
Just like consoles. How do you not get that?
The ONLY difference between regular consoles and this is that regular consoles stay the same for 10 years before evolving, while this will allow a little more rapid evolving. How is that in any way shape or form bad?

"
Not get what? What are you even going on about? "Regular consoles and this"? "This will allow a little more rapid evolving"? You still don't understand that you're just trying to compare a pc and a game console? And I haven't noticed anyone suggest that the ability to upgrade components in a pc is a bad thing. Where are you getting this nonsense from?!

Sure, they absolutely want an exit from the stronghold Microsoft has with Windows. And what's wrong with that?

Who said anything is wrong with it?

If Microsoft succeeds with their App Store, they will effectively start herding people away from Steam, which will hurt Valve economically, so ofcourse they need a way out.

The Microsoft App Store doesn't threaten to `herd people away from Steam`, it threatens to take a portion of their revenue BUT only IF certain things fall into place, which at this point looks unlikely. Not that it isn't wise to develop a plan B just in case.

Linux was the ONLY realistic choice, as the only other alternative was MacOS, and there Apple already has an even tighter grip of the ecosystem.

I disagree. Valve could have developed their own OS from the ground up that would truly be built for gaming, rather than put bandaids on everything wrong with Linux (gaming). Linux was the EASIER and CHEAPER choice, but not the "ONLY" one.

I don't care what operating system they decide to use for their products. Neither should you.
Who cares what operating system Sony uses on the Playstation?
This was never part of the discussion, so why bring it up?

I never said I cared what OS Valve bases Steam OS on. But, you're wrong that it's not part of the discussion. It's a central point because it's the very reason for Valve's actions. By creating the Steam OS distro, Valve is trying to shift Windows gaming over to Linux. And you think that isn't a part of the discussion? ....wow

You claim the machines are absolute regular ordinary PC's with just another operating system installed.

It's common knowledge. Valve owns words are `anyone can create a Steam Machine with off-the-shelf parts`.

That's the exact same thing with consoles. They all even contain the same kind of hardware these days.
x86 CPU with a GPU from AMD or nVidia.
The only really difference between them all (including xbox and playstation) are the operating systems.

No, it's not the exact same thing with consoles. The system design is not the same, and neither are the parts used. If you think you can build a PS4 or Xbox One with a quick trip to your local computer store, you're wrong.

There simply is no difference, technologically speaking. They are _all_ regular PC's with different operating systems.

Wrong. As I just said, consoles use a more integrated design and modified versions of CPU's and GPU's that aren't available off-the-shelf. The are two significant differences beyond simply running different OSes.

It's like you wanna throw every last piece of shit you can find at the wall and see what sticks. Why?
Why are you so hell bent on dissing what they are attempting to acheive?

This makes absolutely no sense at all. How exactly does pointing out facts equate to throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks? And how do you interpret it as "dissing what they are attempting to achieve"? At no point have I said anything negative about Valve's pursuit to make Linux gaming tangible competition. So far they haven't done anything new, anything impressive, and given me as a pc & console gamer any reason to bother with Steam OS. Would you prefer I lie or pretend otherwise? I've already explained what it would take for Valve and Steam OS to win me over so obviously the door is open. But, I'm not going to get a hard-on when there's nothing to get a hard-on for.

Maybe, but why kick them in the process?
You are contributing to that uphill climb, instead of helping.

In what way do you think I'm kicking them or making their uphill climb even harder? Because I won't dump Windows and console gaming in favor of Steam OS without good reason? It's their job to win me over, not my job to blindly follow.

", and no good reason to buy a pc with Steam OS over an Xbox or Playstation.

Unless you own a shit-ton of Steam games, that is.
Why buy an Xbox instead of a Playstation?
Why buy a Playstation instead of an Xbox?
It's the same argument. "
If you own a shit-ton of Steam games, you already own a pc and thus likely wouldn't be prompted to buy another one just to install Steam OS when it gives you no advantage at this point.

"The only exceptions would be some morality about who you support

Just like Xbox vs Playstation.
Your point? "
Do you truthfully not understand the statement?

", or Steam OS offering must-have exclusives that justify going that route. Most people don't care about the former, and whether the latter ever becomes trues has yet to be seen.

Just like Xbox vs Playstation.
Again, what's your point? "
Wrong. Xbox & PS already have several established blockbusters/exclusives. Steam, not so much. They're going to need more than Half-Life and Portal to become any real competition.

You seem to believe that these will actually be WORSE than an Xbox or Playstation, when in reality they are more likely gonna give you BETTER graphics and MORE available games for the same money.

Crazy huh?

Yes, it's crazy that you say that because at no point did I ever say anything like that. Not even remotely close to it.

Xbox One and Playstation 4 have very few games available at the moment, while the Steam Machines, even before they have been released, already have over 300 games available,

Xbox One and PS4 has the advantage of having a variety of juggernaut titles. Of those 300 steam games, how many can you say that about?

all of them fully playable at 1080p, 60Hz, while both Xbox One and PS4 struggle to do the same with their existing games.
Both of them have upscaled some games from lower resolutions, to be able to handle them. And that's right after the consoles have been released.
Does not bode well for future game engine technology.

As is always the case at launch. Once the engines get fine-tuned and people learn these systems, you'll see vast improvement. As is always the case.